SciFi and Fantasy eBook Club discussion
General Topics
>
A Question about the Authors section
Charles wrote: "Or perhaps even, why does a book reading club need an authors' section at all? In theory, this group is simply about a collection of people reading the same e-book in the SF&F genres and discussing..."This pretty much sums up my thoughts also.
Charles wrote: "...If SF&F authors want to get together to discuss the world of writing, publishing, and promoting such books, by all means feel free to start a group just for that..."You're welcome to join us over on the Smashwords Authors Goodreads group! We have a lot of sci-fi and fantasy writers, some of whom recently collaborated to publish an ebook short-story anthology.
I'm against authors self-promoting in any group which is not overtly for authors. The presumption must be that if a group doesn't say it's for authors, then it's for readers - and readers have no difficulty finding books to read and discuss, they don't need authors to barge in and tell them what to read.
And from what I've seen, there's an inverse law here: the authors who are the pushiest sellers are also the ones who write the worst books.
And from what I've seen, there's an inverse law here: the authors who are the pushiest sellers are also the ones who write the worst books.
Nemo wrote: "The presumption must be that if a group doesn't say it's for authors, then it's for readers..."But when group has an Authors or Self-Promotion section with instructions that that section is the only place self-promotion can go, then one must assume that the group has been set up to accommodate authors as well as readers.
I'm on some other non-book forums where they require members to post X amount of non-sales related posts before they can post in the For Sale sections. That seems to stop overt spamming. I suspect GR isn't set up to accommodate that level of control to its groups.
I don't think GR has been set up very advantageously or flexibly as far as its filtering and controls go. Then again, my #1 to-do whenever I sign up to a forum (any forum) is to edit my profile to stop all email notices. I can't see why people need to be notified every time there is a post about anything, that would drive me bat-sh*t crazy.
Micah wrote: "Nemo wrote: "The presumption must be that if a group doesn't say it's for authors, then it's for readers..."But when group has an Authors or Self-Promotion section with instructions that that sec..."
I don't think we're trying to infer that anyone has broken any "rules" by using the Authors' sub-forum here. The question is more as to whether the original decision to create an authors' sub-forum as a sort of preemptive strike to keep self-promotion in one place (and which the vast majority of the participating authors stick to quite civilly, I think) is, in fact, advantageous or disadvantageous to the main purpose of this group, with a possible alternative being no self-promotion in this group at all.
I think that when the group was started by Geoffrey, several of us were active as well at KBoards.com (KindleBoards at that time), where the "Book Bazaar" and "Writers' Cafe" had been set up as the place that the many authors there were corralled into for their self-promotion and author-centric discussions, so it was just sort of assumed the same was needed here, too.
In 20/20 hindsight now, the discussion point here is, I think, if that was really best for the purpose of this group, and if its specific purpose (reading and discussing SF&F e-books) might be better serverd by totally filtering out the author-centric promotion/discussion threads, and let the authors do that somewhere in another or new group tailored to that specific purpose.
I think my main worry about authors self-promoting in a readers' group is that authors are the worst judges of the merits of their own books. So allowing authors to self-promote means that readers are being alerted to books, not because the books are good, but simply because the author is pushy. This is surely not a good criterion for bringing a book to the group's attention.
I find the self-adulation of some authors on Goodreads frankly pathetic. The worst offenders are authors who give their own books a five-star review. Really? You think your book is as good as books by Tolkien, LeGuin, Crowley... [fill in your favourite authors' names here]? What are the chances of that? And if your critical judgment regarding the respective merits of your and other people's books is so poor, why should I expect the quality of your writing to be any better?
I find the self-adulation of some authors on Goodreads frankly pathetic. The worst offenders are authors who give their own books a five-star review. Really? You think your book is as good as books by Tolkien, LeGuin, Crowley... [fill in your favourite authors' names here]? What are the chances of that? And if your critical judgment regarding the respective merits of your and other people's books is so poor, why should I expect the quality of your writing to be any better?
Charles wrote: "Micah wrote: "Nemo wrote: "The presumption must be that if a group doesn't say it's for authors, then it's for readers..."But when group has an Authors or Self-Promotion section with instructions..."
WOW you said it perfectly....I agree. I still follow the non author areas of Kboards, but would love an ad free book group.
After reading the comments from authors and readers over the last few days, I think the author's section should locked. It seems like the promotions are shots in the dark anyway.
I've created a poll. I'm inserting the url here and putting it at the bottom of the group homepage but I'm not going to send it out with the monthly announcement for the new polls/nominations tomorrow. Oh, and I'm keeping the results hidden until the poll is over.
This is offering 3 options:
1. No self-promotions
2. Self-promotions only from those authors active on the board as readers.
3. All self-promotions allowed
and we'll see what we see ....
https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/9...
This is offering 3 options:
1. No self-promotions
2. Self-promotions only from those authors active on the board as readers.
3. All self-promotions allowed
and we'll see what we see ....
https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/9...
Nemo wrote: "The worst offenders are authors who give their own books a five-star review. Really? ..."I noticed that, too, and it had me scratching my head. But Goodreads kinda sets you up that way. Your own books are automatically on your shelf, and it prompts you to rate them. From a marketing perspective, no rating is a good choice since 5 stars is self-adulation, 4 stars is false modesty, 3 stars looks weak, 2 is worrisome, and 1 makes you wonder why the published at all. I chickened out and simply didn't rate my stuff. *Shrug*
It's kind of a no-win situation, and you're right that most authors really have no way of judging the merit of their books.
I've watched this topic develop, and for the most part, you've all confirmed what I feared from the beginning about using goodreads for any kind of promotion. I don't see Rowling in here hawking her books, do I? :-\ It seems intuitive that no one wants to be hit with ads all the time, in spite of the common wisdom that you will get a return if you just keep bludgeoning people with your name and titles and promotions.
That said, I'm trusting my own judgment in this and limiting my involvement in these groups to participation NOT involving marketing. My publicist may be upset by it, but I would rather you stumble across my books because you like something I say or out of your own interest than because you can't get away from constant mentions.
I hope my fellow authors will do likewise and help make the author presence less intrusive here.
Of course, once an author mentions this in the Authors' forum, we non-authors will be outnumbered. ;-)
Random librarian tip for authors: Since you aren't allowed to put promo stuff in the description (well you can try, but it'll get removed if it's spotted), and most people don't know what to write to review their own book, your own review is a nice and generally acceptable place to paste things like other-author-blurbs or some nice quotes from previous reviews, and links to extra material (maps, character sheets, that kind of thing, if you have the kind of book that might have those on your website, a direct link is nice). Assuming you got permission from the respective copyright holders, of course.
See, I'm not anti-marketing, I'm just anti putting it where it's not welcome! I'd probably skip adding a star rating though.
Other random librarian tip: Don't review or rate more than one edition of your own book. You'll get in trouble (do it repeatedly, they'll take away your author toys.)
This has been a very interesting conversation. I wouldn't feel right reviewing my own work. Apparently no one else does yet either...hehe...I kid I kid
Krazykiwi wrote: "Random librarian tip for authors: Since you aren't allowed to put promo stuff in the description (well you can try, but it'll get removed if it's spotted), and most people don't know what to write ..."Thanks for the tips! I always appreciate people who take the time to help others with acceptable etiquette, no matter the situation or setting.
I went and took my own rating down. I forgot that you could mark that you've read a book without assigning a rating to it.
Joe wrote: "This has been a very interesting conversation. I wouldn't feel right reviewing my own work. Apparently no one else does yet either...hehe...I kid I kid"Thanks for the laugh!
Charles wrote: "Of course, once an author mentions this in the Authors' forum, we non-authors will be outnumbered. ;-)"
:-D I can see how the vote stands and who's voting for what. It's good to be the king.
:-D I can see how the vote stands and who's voting for what. It's good to be the king.
Nemo wrote: "I think my main worry about authors self-promoting in a readers' group is that authors are the worst judges of the merits of their own books..."I can't argue with that!
Sabrina wrote: I always appreciate people who take the time to help others with acceptable etiquette, no matter the situation or setting.
An example of bad author etiquette is sending someone a friend request and then, as soon as the request is accepted, asking the person to read your book. This is really just spamming. I don't know if there's a special word for it (friend-spamming? framming?), but there should be. I usually respond to it by blocking the spammer (blamming?).
An example of bad author etiquette is sending someone a friend request and then, as soon as the request is accepted, asking the person to read your book. This is really just spamming. I don't know if there's a special word for it (friend-spamming? framming?), but there should be. I usually respond to it by blocking the spammer (blamming?).
I agree Nemo. That is absolutely horrible author etiquette.
I've ignored friend requests from lots of authors. If you have 1700 friends and only 5 books on your shelves, none of which you've even written a review for, I'm not accepting the request.
Personally I check a person's profile before sending or accepting a friend request. I like to see that they read and enjoy similar books. Would we have anything in common? If I wanted 1000 friends that I don't care about, I'd be on Facebook.
Donna wrote: If you have 1700 friends and only 5 books on your shelves, none of which you've even written a review for, I'm not accepting the request.
Besides which, an author who's only read 5 books probably isn't a very good author.
Besides which, an author who's only read 5 books probably isn't a very good author.
I had that happen a few times to me, Nemo. There wasn't even an introduction, just a 'Hi, read my book'. I usually click through to the book anyway. I'm ever optimistic that a book will pass my first page test. They rarely do.
In the past I was accepting friend requests without much screening, but more recently I've not been accepting those who seem like authors with books to push. It does seem like there is an increasing number of indie authors coming to Goodreads for the sole purpose of letting us know they've written a book. I don't get many friend requests from traditionally published authors. Maybe they're too busy (gasp!) writing.
I've sent friend requests to some of my favorite authors and they accepted. I don't think they have time to hunt for friends. I have several friends who are indie authors with 1-10 books, however, they've never asked for reviews even though they gave me a free e copy. I think it's one thing for an author to offer you a copy because they've checked your shelves and think you will enjoy it and offering a copy in return for a review. If someone gives me a copy of their book (any format) I will review it. They may not like the review. Too bad.
Steph wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I think my main worry about authors self-promoting in a readers' group is that authors are the worst judges of the merits of their own books..."I can't argue with that!"
Neither can I, though I don't see any connection between that and an author promoting their work.
Unless of course the author is insiting that their book is fantastical awesomeness incarnate--which I have seen some authors do, and it's very embarassing.
Thomas wrote: "I've sent friend requests to some of my favorite authors and they accepted. I don't think they have time to hunt for friends. I have several friends who are indie authors with 1-10 books, however,..."I always get so excited when my favorite author befriends me! I mean, yes, they have like a thousand friends, but it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
SabrinaIt is cool and you have something in common with them - Their books. They've shared something of themselves with you. I know when I write, my beliefs and feelings, hopes and dreams come out on the pages.
Thomas wrote: "SabrinaIt is cool and you have something in common with them - Their books. They've shared something of themselves with you. I know when I write, my beliefs and feelings, hopes and dreams come ..."
So true, Thomas. No matter the genre, a writer is sharing a glimpse of their mind with the world. A reader really feels connected to their favorite author.
One of my favorite series is J D Robb's In Death. I'm on the library waiting list for the new books as soon as they order them.
I have not had a chance to read any of J.D Robb's books yet, but I keep hearing they are good.
J. D Robb is Nora Roberts. The In Death series takes place in 2058 and beyond the main character is a NYC police officer working in homicide. The science fiction is light but realistic. The romance is light. The character development is good and even continues after 40 books. If you look at my reviews, character stagnation or limited character development will be commented on in a negative way.
Micah wrote: "I don't think GR has been set up very advantageously or flexibly as far as its filtering and controls go. Then again, my #1 to-do whenever I sign up to a forum (any forum) is to edit my profile to stop all email notices. I can't see why people need to be notified every time there is a post about anything, that would drive me bat-sh*t crazy. "I think this is a lot of the problem right here. GR would do well to allow more customization of notifications. I'm new to GR and I only belong to a few groups, yet of 65 notifications I get, 60 will be promotions, and it makes me want to stay away from GR.
So I don't blame the readers for getting annoyed. The authors don't mean to "barge" in and tell you what to read. The promos really are supposed to act as suggestions, with the assumption that if you're interested in a story that has A, B and C elements, you might like their work. But the way GR has it set up, any mention of our work becomes the used car insurance hard-sell. :-\
J.D. Robb might not be to everyone's taste. I read the first book on a dare. The characters were idealized silhouettes without a touch of the plausible. Heavy on the Romance angle, I thought. The mystery was commonplace. The best part of the book was her left of left political views that seemed to torque conservative readers. I will not be reading a second book by her.
And no author -- none, not even the reincarnation of William Shakespeare -- could hold my interest with the same characters for forty books.
And no author -- none, not even the reincarnation of William Shakespeare -- could hold my interest with the same characters for forty books.
Folks, Amazon owns Goodreads - you're surprised by this? This makes the company money and they'll never stop it. You can live with a constant bombardment of ads in your daily lives (TV, Magazines, Billboards, Newspapers, Buses, Radio), surely you can be your own filter here.
Greg wrote: "And no author -- none, not even the reincarnation of William Shakespeare -- could hold my interest with the same characters for forty books. "To be honest, I wonder how those characters even hold the author's interest for that long.
Stories about current politics and "memes" (in the Dawkins sense of the word, not the Facebook sense) are dooming themselves to being dated in a very short time, sometimes before the book even hits the shelf.
Greg wrote: "Folks, Amazon owns Goodreads - you're surprised by this? .... ......Surely you can be your own filter here. "
Yes, but the only useful filter I see is to "turn off" Goodreads all together. Its not worth anyones time to try to filter 90% chaff for 10% wheat
I think there is another group I belong to which confines all promotions to one thread (not just one section). This means that no matter how many promos there are, it will only show up as one thread in your previews. I don't do the mailings so I'm not sure how it would look there. Perhaps that could be a solution? Like others I've used the Author's section once or twice but mostly I post here as a reader, so I don't care if the group decides to ban promotions. They really don't work anyway.
We all have different tastes. I have a friend that will tell you Star Wars books are great literature. Robb does change the characters slowly over the course of the series as Dallas experiences things. The first few books are heavier on the Dallas/Rouke relationship. While not great literature it meets the first requirement of being entertaining. Yes it's formula written and the players are stereotypical but it is entertaining. Not a debate just my opinion. This would be dull if you all agreed with me. Similar discussions go on in all the forums, which makes this worthwhile. I have actually found good recommendations of books through the forums. Authors need to be voracious readers. Might be an interesting discussion of how many books an author should read each year is enough. Their own books don't count.
Micah wrote: Steph wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I think my main worry about authors self-promoting in a readers' group is that authors are the worst judges of the merits of their own books..."
I can't argue with that!"
Neither can I, though I don't see any connection between that and an author promoting their work.
Unless of course the author is insiting that their book is fantastical awesomeness incarnate--which I have seen some authors do, and it's very embarassing.
If authors were good judges of their books, many of these self-promoters would be embarrassed by their own work, and would be doing something more productive than bothering the likes of us with it.
I was in the supermarket yesterday, and there was an annoying child who kept yelling, 'Mam! Mam! Look at this! Look at this!'
And I thought: yes, that child is going to grow up to be a self-published author. You've got the behaviour right there.
ETA: Apologies if I seem grumpy. I've just read the first 6 pages of 'Prince of Thorns', and it's put me in a really bad mood. And that doesn't even have the excuse of being self-published.
I can't argue with that!"
Neither can I, though I don't see any connection between that and an author promoting their work.
Unless of course the author is insiting that their book is fantastical awesomeness incarnate--which I have seen some authors do, and it's very embarassing.
If authors were good judges of their books, many of these self-promoters would be embarrassed by their own work, and would be doing something more productive than bothering the likes of us with it.
I was in the supermarket yesterday, and there was an annoying child who kept yelling, 'Mam! Mam! Look at this! Look at this!'
And I thought: yes, that child is going to grow up to be a self-published author. You've got the behaviour right there.
ETA: Apologies if I seem grumpy. I've just read the first 6 pages of 'Prince of Thorns', and it's put me in a really bad mood. And that doesn't even have the excuse of being self-published.
Aww, Nemo. I had much the same reaction to Prince of Thorns. Not my cup of tea. In regards to authors being a poor judge of their own work, I agree, but then I think that is true for any form of art, whether it's music, art, writing. And often times, it's only due to author's belief in themselves and persistence that eventually make them a success. I am thinking of authors like Agatha Christie, who was refused by something like 15 publishers. Or JK Rowling who was rejected numerous times.
What takes off and what becomes popular doesn't always make much sense, but then art, in any form, is so subjective.
I always like to have a choice in my entertainment. And sometimes I find that current popular trends do not appeal to me. And that's when I am grateful for Indie artists.
Thanks, Thomas. I'll check the J.D Robb books out. One wonderful thing about Goodreads is the amount of excellent book recommendations I've received. Found so many good series that I would have otherwise overlooked in bookstore.
Sabrina wrote: I had much the same reaction to Prince of Thorns. Not my cup of tea.
'Prince of Thorns' has gone in the recycling. First time I've ever done that with a novel.
Sabrina wrote: often times, it's only due to author's belief in themselves and persistence that eventually make them a success.
Yes, of course. I'm not against self-publishing as such (forget my petulant and rather glib remark about the child in the supermarket), only against self-promotion in a group of this sort. Like you, I try to find new books outside the usual fare from the big publishers. It's hit and miss, but sometimes one finds a gem, such as Paul Dale's 'The Dark Lord's Handbook'.
'Prince of Thorns' has gone in the recycling. First time I've ever done that with a novel.
Sabrina wrote: often times, it's only due to author's belief in themselves and persistence that eventually make them a success.
Yes, of course. I'm not against self-publishing as such (forget my petulant and rather glib remark about the child in the supermarket), only against self-promotion in a group of this sort. Like you, I try to find new books outside the usual fare from the big publishers. It's hit and miss, but sometimes one finds a gem, such as Paul Dale's 'The Dark Lord's Handbook'.
Nemo Thanks. I just added the handbook to my to read list. It looks interesting and I haven't seen it listed anywhere.
Hope you like it, Thomas. I know he's working on a sequel.
Nemo wrote: "Hope you like it, Thomas. I know he's working on a sequel."Oh, that sounds hilarious! I'm so reading that. Thanks, Nemo!
The votes are in and we've chosen to allow promotions by authors who are also active members.
I looked at who voted for what and it was actually more non-goodreads authors voting for allow than authors so it felt like a very fair vote to me. (also, it was a mix of older members and newer members voting for allow with no evidence of vote fixing so all is good in Goodreadslandia)
As I've watched the vote, I've been practicing the active only policy this past week and been removing promotions from authors who join just to promote - this has included a couple who've been members for a while but only ever promoted here.
Also, I added a post to the Author area and to the header area so we'll see how this goes. I hope you authors don't feel put out at all and I'm glad you all participated in this conversation and vote.
Going forward, I'm thinking this will be a judgement call as to who isn't active but we'll see. I'm thinking drive-by posting will decrease after a bit so hopefully all will be good.
G
I looked at who voted for what and it was actually more non-goodreads authors voting for allow than authors so it felt like a very fair vote to me. (also, it was a mix of older members and newer members voting for allow with no evidence of vote fixing so all is good in Goodreadslandia)
As I've watched the vote, I've been practicing the active only policy this past week and been removing promotions from authors who join just to promote - this has included a couple who've been members for a while but only ever promoted here.
Also, I added a post to the Author area and to the header area so we'll see how this goes. I hope you authors don't feel put out at all and I'm glad you all participated in this conversation and vote.
Going forward, I'm thinking this will be a judgement call as to who isn't active but we'll see. I'm thinking drive-by posting will decrease after a bit so hopefully all will be good.
G
If SF&F authors want to get together to discuss the world of writing, publishing, and promoting such books, by all means feel free to start a group just for that. If all they want to do is promote their own books, they could start a group for that, too. But why does a book reading/discussion club need either of those?
That's not necessarily a rhetorical question, but I'll admit you'll have a tough row to hoe convincing me that it's for my own good as a reader. (And I think really talented authors have a lot of empathy, so try to view it from the non-author's viewpoint before answering that with anything along those lines.)